ACA last night

[snakeluvver]

Anyone see ACA last night? Where its about how a man died and his "ex girlfriend" came back to claim money she doesnt deserve? Well that womans daughter is my friend and I just want everyone to know that her mum is not the gold digger she was portrayed as.
What happened is the man who died is my friends stepfather, and my friends mother was engaged to him and when he died she wanted to claim money. However, the stepfathers own children, who never liked my friend and her mum, went to ACA to portray her as this monster.
I'd just like to give justice to my friends family, so you can see that this story is complete bull.

 

[kawasakirider]

Mate you're 12.. Regardless of what you have heard from your friend, you can't definitively say what her mothers motives were or weren't, or if the family is indeed unjustly making her out to be a gold digger.

The sad thing out of all this isn't the fact that people are being portrayed as gold diggers. It's the fact that people are picking over the bones of a deceased man that wouldn't have wanted it. Both parties need to stop and try to come to an amicable solution.

Just my opinion.

 

[snakeluvver]

Its more than just whats been said by my friend, her whole family has been trying to get justice.
And they werent "picking over his bones" she simply wanted to prove they were engaged.

I see your point though. I hope this thread doesnt go downhill

 

[vampstorso]

isn't death and Wills a funny thing?

In a Law class, we were taught to leave everyone we could think of $1, that way they can't dispute that they weren't "considered" and take money/possessions you'd intentionally left to someone else.

In my opinion, as long as the Will (if there was one) was honored, that's what counts. That's where the "not deserving" the money would come into play in my mind: IF he had personally chosen what he wanted done with his possessions and she voided it.

however, I'm guessing they were probably rather young, and so Wills etc probably weren't in place.

and so, only herself and the deceased will ever know if this was right or not.


didn't see it on ACA though, because...I don't need my mind melting any further.

 

[Pinoy]

No one with an opinion worth hearing really believes that rubbish anyway lol.
ACA is garbage, plain and simple.

 

[Australis]

Only the really guilable believe whats aired on ACA... it will blow over.

 

[snakeluvver]

The problem with the will is he never made one.

 

[CrystalMoon]

From what I am told it is not cheap to contest a will, so the end has to justify the means so to speak. I am a firm believer that a will is left to bequeath(sp)all that is left from the deceased to those he CHOOSES. I feel for your friend and her Mother, however I wonder
if any-one but those directly concerned will ever know the real story? we know media even ACA hype facts up to sound more exciting/juicy etc I just find it sad when people quibble over dead people's belongings/wealth etc.....

 

[vampstorso]

The problem with the will is he never made one.

I did say that that there probably wasn't one...which is why I added that only her and the deceased know if what she did was right.

 

[Wally]

So much weight on such young shoulders snakeluvver. Go easy young fella, you'll have more than enough to contend with in years to come.

 

[CrystalMoon]

I did say that that there probably wasn't one...which is why I added that only her and the deceased know if what she did was right.

Ohhh no will.... that'll teach me for not sleeping for a couple of nights..... That is trusting it all in the lap of the Gods then isnt it?
you can only hope people are honorable in these cases.....Death can bring out the best and worst in people.... Sorry for not reading the post properley Snakeluvver
Crystal

 

[Renenet]

In a Law class, we were taught to leave everyone we could think of $1, that way they can't dispute that they weren't "considered" and take money/possessions you'd intentionally left to someone else.

That's hilarious. Although, having spent plenty of time around the legal profession, it doesn't surprise me. The law is a donkey. (I'd use the three-letter term except that APS thinks I'm swearing.) The sad thing is that the only people who generally win out of will disputes, especially the ones that go to court, are the lawyers. The asset pool quickly drains into their pockets; all the contenders are left with is the acrimony they had to begin with, magnified, plus all the bruising that comes with having been wrung through the legal process.

didn't see it on ACA though, because...I don't need my mind melting any further.

:lol: Ain't that the truth.

Don't worry, Snakeluvver. A lot of people know that ACA stories are a beat-up.

 

[mad_at_arms]

No one with an opinion worth hearing really believes that rubbish anyway lol.
ACA is garbage, plain and simple.

Here here, They portrayed a mate of mine as some dirty old creep. He really was just a victim of circumstance.
"Reporting" at its lowest denomination best describes ACA

 

[ekipkcorb]

‪CNNNN A Chaser Affair‬‏ - YouTube

 

[euphorion]

Mate you're 12.. Regardless of what you have heard from your friend, you can't definitively say what her mothers motives were or weren't, or if the family is indeed unjustly making her out to be a gold digger.

The sad thing out of all this isn't the fact that people are being portrayed as gold diggers. It's the fact that people are picking over the bones of a deceased man that wouldn't have wanted it. Both parties need to stop and try to come to an amicable solution.

Just my opinion.

Mate you're 19... What's your point exactly? You lose credibility by bringing someone's age (or apparent lackthereof) into your preceding statements. Finally by summing up with "just my opinion", it's almost like you're trying to excuse yourself from being rude. Just let the kid vent, no need to go sticking your nose in making assumptions and topping it off by trying to bring him down.

But back on track with the thread; i actually caught myself looking at a 'couples will' package yesterday. Really have to get on to that :/ never done anything like it before!

 

[kawasakirider]

Mate you're 19... What's your point exactly? You lose credibility by bringing someone's age (or apparent lackthereof) into your preceding statements. Finally by summing up with "just my opinion", it's almost like you're trying to excuse yourself from being rude. Just let the kid vent, no need to go sticking your nose in making assumptions and topping it off by trying to bring him down.

I wasn't bringing him down at all. The fact is, he IS 12, and he is getting information from the womans DAUGHTER who is also a young kid. How much of the truth is being fed to the daughter, and how much is lost in translation when she passes the story on?

He's not old enough to be worrying about stuff like this. He does have the mental capacity to do so (read his posts, he's very smart) but that doesn't mean the information he is getting is gospel truth.

 

[Bluetongue1]

I must concur with shooshoo’s opening comments with respect to age. In this particular context it simply does not matter.

….you can't definitively say what her mothers motives were or weren't….

Snakeluuver clearly explained the relationship and therefore the basis on which his friend’s mother sought to be included as a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. I would suggest that you are shooting from the hip with such a statement, for one of two possible reasons. You may not have read the post carefully enough and missed the statement “my friends mother was engaged to him and when he died she wanted to claim money”. Alternatively, you may have watched the relevant ACA program(I did not) and have chosen to accept the information given there which I assume says that the woman was not engaged to the dead man. You might choose to question the truth of Snakeluuver’s statement, but are hardly enough in the know to question his ability to determine motives under the circumstances.

I don’t like having to go through what I have just done. I did so in the hope that you might appreciate that it is better to concentrate more on what is said in posts and less on who said it. Despite your age compared to mine, I still read your posts thoroughly and, like I do with others, take what is of value from them.

There is no question that amicably settling the distribution of the estate would be far and away the most desirable alternative. However, the reality is that it tends to bring out the absolute worst in people. Even where there is a will, it is not uncommon for it to be contested. This has been known to tear families apart. So what chance is there with a previous wife’s children and a new lover that don’t get on (an all to common scenario), particularly given that the individual has died intestate? It is about as likely to happen a nobody ever trying to make money again out of dodgy reptile sales. It would be nice if…..

A couple of contributing factors are the amount of money and the nature of personal relationships. Each person feels their relationship with the deceased was special – and that may well be the case. The problem is they expect that to translate to a “special” slice of the estate. There is also the amount of money involved. You can be looking a whole year’s wages that would take you 20 years worth of working to save up. You don’t really want to see that go to someone who you do not consider deserves it. For example, if you have had a close relationship with the deceased for twenty years and someone else has been there one year, it’s not hard to work out what you reckon the other person deserves (and that’s if you like them!).

Blue

 

[kawasakirider]

I read the statement. What I'm trying to say is there are most definitely mitigating factors that wouldn't be explained to the child that snakeluvver is getting his information from, whatever information he is receiving is more than likely tailored to suit whoever is telling the story, and things get lost in translation (especially when considering it is coming from a daughter who is understandably bias, and when children often omit details, or exaggerate them, or don't fully understand them). Who is to say this woman ISN'T out for more than she should be entitled to? Who is to say she IS? No one really knows.

It doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong, all I was saying is that I highly doubt everything is as it seems at first glance. The 12 year old comment is in relation to me thinking that snakeluvver has probably not considered this, because it isn't likely to cross a young childs mind who is also biased (as the story is from a friend of his), AND it is too much on the shoulders of a young kid.

I also emphasised the fact that the saddest part of the whole situation is not who gets what, but rather the people that were in this mans life are picking over his bones (how ever you like to dress it up, it is exactly what is happening) and not resolving things amicably. I'm sure the bloke would not have wanted that.

I don't watch ACA unless they're reporting on pressing issues like the best value muffin mixes, so I didn't see the episode in question.

 

[Snakeluvver2]

Wow you guys are literally arguing on something you have no idea about it.
It's like going to the pub and listening to people talk crap. The only person who has an actual idea is Snakeluvver over there.

ACA = horrible news made to shock people, cause fear that the government can't do.

 

[Bradchip]

It's pretty much the code of all these current affair shows to make someone the bad guy. If they wanted a nice balanced argument showing both sides then they wouldn't get the ratings.

I have no idea about all the details, but know things like the contesting of a will get incredibly nasty (on both sides).

I don't think there's a single person out there that would take ACA or Today Tonight as credible journalism, and if they do, then they're completely naive. Everything is a ratings grab