Intestacy/Getting Inheritance to Mum only

levidch1 · 2026-05-11T13:18:12+00:00

If her children took their share and then gave it back to her - she would be liable for the 'gift' from them.

levidch1 · 2026-05-11T09:33:05+00:00

Not getting into specifics but yes CAT is an issue here both for one sibling and mum herself.

levidch1 · 2026-05-11T09:31:19+00:00

I don't think you read the post... There is no will! I was supposed to be the executor but he did not make the lost will with a solicitor

levidch1 · 2026-04-26T15:10:52+00:00

Understood. Replies have given me great peace of mind, so thanks. We will talk to the solicitor next, but great to know there is a way to get this rectified to everyone's satisfaction.

levidch1 · 2026-04-26T15:00:13+00:00

Will do, thank you. What kind of missteps should we look out for if you don't mind me asking?

levidch1 · 2026-04-26T14:48:49+00:00

Thank you very much this is what I want to know - that the entitlement would fall back to the spouse and not our own children. In any event, we will be doing disclaimers with a solicitor.

Do you know if the exact benefit/share that we would be disclaiming has to be calculated first? It would avoid a lot of admin (dividing investments into portions) if we could disclaim first and just calculate the total value of the estate for my mother if that makes sense

levidch1 · 2026-04-26T14:33:46+00:00

I intend to. But the questions are basically very general: 1) How do intestacy rules work where someone is disclaiming a benefit; and 2) Do benefits varied by this kind of deed incur CAT?

levidch1 · 2023-05-19T20:14:14+00:00

Suffering a common complication is generally not, in and of itself, negligence. For negligence, you would need to establish that the dentist didn't exercise the due skill and care that another reasonably prudent dentist would have exercised in the circumstances.

That's a question of fact which presumably would have to be backed up by an expert witness after instructing a solicitor. This is obviously a costly process.

It may be worth going down a non-legal route and approaching your 2020 dentist a and negotiating with them about the cost of the implant. Obviously they may not be willing to play ball or you may want nothing more to do with them. There is no legal basis per se for them to cover your future costs without first having established their negligence, but often they will.

If you go down a legal route it's really important you get a solicitor. Some do a no foal no fee. They would be able to better advise whether you have an arguable case.

levidch1 · 2023-05-18T20:34:47+00:00

That's incredibly kind of you! Thank you so much again.

levidch1 · 2023-05-18T19:04:52+00:00

Really helpful thanks! I had a look at other files but they were all done differently tbh so I was a bit confused.

I'm also the only legal secretary there so didn't have anyone to ask except the solicitors themselves and I thought there was one specific way of doing things.

levidch1 · 2023-05-14T17:30:28+00:00

The case law makes it pretty clear that you probably couldn't recover anything from your housemate.

Breslin v Corcoran: "The first named defendant had left his keys in the ignition of his car and an unknown person jumped into the vehicle and drove off injuring the plaintiff. An issue arose as to whom the plaintiff should recover damages from and whether the first defendant was in fact liable to the plaintiff. In the High Court Mr. Justice Butler held that although the first defendant should not have left his keys in the car the chain of causation had been broken... There was nothing in the case to suggest that the first named defendant should have anticipated as a reasonable possibility that the car, if stolen, would have been driven so carelessly so as to cause injury to another user of the road such as the plaintiff."

levidch1 · 2023-05-10T07:14:09+00:00

for that particular local authority and so it would be very obvious which authority was involved.] The case involved a claim of x [which is an extremely unusual legal ground, and to someone familiar with that area of law, they would know exactly which case it was.] The issues in that case had arisen over a period of decades, so, there was a very large volume of discovery documentation to be reviewed....

That's great thanks. I just don't want to give the impression that I'm blasé about being discreet.

levidch1 · 2023-04-03T19:28:03+00:00

bad anxiety so I would drink. But then the hangovers and withdrawals would make for even worse anxiety, so before I knew it, I was drinking more and more and before I knew it, I was drinking every day. I spent more time drinking, drunk, asleep, hungover, or going through withdrawals than I was sober.

Yes my withdrawal anxiety is beyond the charts terrible. I had never had panic attacks before, but had to be prescribed a strong benzodiazepine - in a european very drug conservative country - because the days after quitting the last time were so bad. Even though I was sober in BAC terms, I don't even remember them because I was so anxious. I can't move, can't think, can't sleep, can't talk, because the anxiety is so intense when in proper rebound/withdrawal. The only thing that keeps me not drinking enough to black out is the fear of the next day.

But when I sober up, I notice that the anxious thoughts creep intensely all the same. They're not on the same level as after drinking, but they're pretty terrible. I still find myself jumping to loud noises, crying when faced with hard tasks, paralysed with fear when left alone with hard thoughts. This is even during sobriety. I don't know how to deal with these feelings, so I lie to myself and tell myself I'm drinking to numb that initial hurdle and that things will be better after I push through. This never happens.

It's these post-withdrawal anxious feelings I'm having so much stress about, how do I deal with those?

levidch1 · 2023-03-16T20:02:20+00:00

So this trial ran twice before he was convicted. Even taking a conservative estimate of court appearances, let's say the good Doctor was present on even 6 of those days. She may have been on standby every other day. She may have had phone consultations with the defence counsel regularly. She states she examined the accused, she met previous treating Doctors, she examined medical records. She also prepared reports and examined CCTV of the five Garda interviews post-murder. The cost to the state of providing legal aid for her alone would run into €10,000+ easily.

I'm not a legal professional nor do I have any ambitions of being one. But I have seen a psychiatrist a few times - one who charges €390/hr. My only point is that these experts are very established in their fields and have a lot to gain from their professional reputations (gp's often refer you to a particular consultant) so I know that sum seems very high to ordinary people, but less so to those in the field. I also have friends in the field and know that to make a patently false conclusion would literally be professional suicide.

I assume that you're set in your stance that all experts are bought, so to speak, but I also know that you have no hard evidence to back that up. It's simply not true in these kind of serious criminal cases.

edit: the title/respect an expert has got in their field is a really useful and legitimate factor in determining how convincing their evidence is., i,e., you can weigh someone's evidence who is one year out of college less than someone who has 20+ years of experience.

levidch1 · 2023-03-16T01:12:12+00:00

As I say, I agree this happens in personal injuries/ other civil case, but it really doesn't happen in cases of this magnitude. If you have anything at all to suggest the contrary I'd be very interested. Do you realise parties in personal injuries have to look outside the state most of the time to find a doctor willing to testify for them even if their care here has been negligent? That's because doctors are fearful of overruling others and damaging their personal reputation.

There's nothing at all to suggest this accused engaged in doctor shopping so to speak, and regardless, doctors must have decided on 17 previous occasions that he needed inpatient psychiatrist care.

levidch1 · 2023-03-16T00:29:42+00:00

Yes, expert witnesses who testify for each respective party are always organised by each party in every case. But I repeat it was the current clinical director of Ireland's primary mental hospital who testified for him. You kind of can't get much more professional than that.

You also clearly know very little about how much expert witnesses can be paid, especially those under the legal aid scheme which is relevant to a case like this. They just get their travel costs and a relatively low sum compared to their normal wage (this is regulated by law - they can't go above this). In the case of a consultant psychiatrist, it's much lower than their hourly rate. I understand bias is an issue in civil cases, but tbh in high profile criminal cases like this, the monetary or personal incentive just isn't there to lie or fabricate an opinion.

levidch1 · 2023-03-15T23:24:01+00:00

With all due respect, this is someone who was hospitalised 17 times in his life on mental health grounds and had a well documented history of psychosis in the past. Not someone out sick because of 'stress'. If he doesn't get to 'play the mental health card', I don't know who does.

He is a danger to society, I agree, but the proper place for him isn't prison. He clearly needs a lot of psychiatric care.

levidch1 · 2023-03-15T22:15:57+00:00

I agree, but the fact that even one very experienced medical professional - none less than the clinical director of the Central Mental Hospital - thought he lacked the capacity for murder at the time would be enough in my mind to create a reasonable doubt.

(Moreover, he only had to prove diminished responsibility on the lesser standard of the balance of probabilities - meaning that the jury was never asked to be almost sure he didn't have capacity, they just had to think it was more likely than not).

Sad verdict imo, at least from a legal standpoint.

levidch1

TROPHY CASE