Dee Drummonds, a resident of Smithers decided before passing away to cut her son, Bruce, out of her will when their relationship diminished. When she died in 2011, her neighbors that she grew very close to were meant to gain her inheritance. However her son did not agree with the situation and thought that since he was her son, he should be the beneficiary. Because of the Wills Variation Act, Bruce was able to fight for a portion of his mother’s inheritance because he felt morally obligated to the inheritance as her son.
My argument to this logic is:
A person’s will is meant to be abided by
Dee Drummonds wrote her son out of her will
/Her son should not receive her inheritance
Although the argument is valid, whether or not it is sound is completely subjective. Some may argue that technically since there are laws in place where a will can be altered legally, Bruce Drummonds was completely entitled to the inheritance. Others may disagree and ask what the point of writing a will is if it will end up being disregarded and altered. In the article we learn that the mother didn’t seem to treat her son fairly, but how much of that really matters in this case? Does that change the validity of the will itself, or is it just an excuse that her son can make in order to convince the courts that he does deserve an inheritance? These questions that could be asked reiterates that this argument can never be declared sound because it is all in up to an individual’s opinion.