5 ms·

What on the surface appeared to be funny in the beginning turned out to be such a sadistic plan in reality.

OJFord 6y ago
It's actually not clear to me (even from the will itself, which is just about legible in the image) that he intended it to be announced as a competition. One could read it as a donation to the largest single Toronto family, i.e. a PR(family)G for a likely quite destitute household. Although, I suppose, there would not really be a reason to delay for ten years in that case. (It could be 'most in the ten years leading up to my death'.)
noneeeed 6y ago
Yeah, 99% Invisible did an episode on this a while back. It really was a wicked thing to do, and in the process also bought out the worst in society as a whole.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Nah. They did it to themselves. Like the three men who hated each other and had to share a house (or lose it). I'd be more interested in whether they bothered to try. Which would have been self-inflicted as well.
tehwebguy 6y ago
Possibly not as sadistic as the judge handling the will: > But some mothers who had more than nine kids still weren’t allowed a shot at the prize. Pauline Clarke was one of them; she had 10 children within the timeline — the first five with her former husband and the second five with a different man, one she lived with after her separation from her husband. Middleton was not impressed. “‘Children,’ when used in any testamentary document, always means legitimate children,” he wrote in his judgment. Instead of $9 million, Clarke was eventually given a settlement of just over $200,000, and that came only after a lengthy lawsuit.
- fred_is_fred 6y ago
  This was 100 years ago and that was not an outside the norm view back then.
  - tehwebguy 6y ago
    OK, procreation based multi-million dollar contest wills were extremely outside the norm ??
    - fred_is_fred 6y ago
      The reply was about legitimate vs illegitimate children - not the contest.
      - tehwebguy 6y ago
        Yes, in the sense of whether someone is a “legitimate child” of the deceased in a normal will (still absolutely repugnant that “illegitimate children” could be excluded by default, but not this judge’s fault). However, it seems clear the judge used that definition to change the rules of the contest, which makes no sense.
        fred_is_fred 6y ago
        The point is that legally (in the eyes of the judge) these were not children of the parties - regardless of the biological situation. I assume that this was standard legal process then and was applied to inheritance and other legal matters. The judge was simply applying existing law and custom by interpreting the words of the contest. This is why you have lawyers write these, although based on what's else this guy did, causing some confusion was likely the point.

It's actually not clear to me (even from the will itself, which is just about legible in the image) that he intended it to be announced as a competition. One could read it as a donation to the largest single Toronto family, i.e. a PR(family)G for a likely quite destitute household. Although, I suppose, there would not really be a reason to delay for ten years in that case. (It could be 'most in the ten years leading up to my death'.)

noneeeed 6y ago

Yeah, 99% Invisible did an episode on this a while back. It really was a wicked thing to do, and in the process also bought out the worst in society as a whole.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Nah. They did it to themselves. Like the three men who hated each other and had to share a house (or lose it). I'd be more interested in whether they bothered to try. Which would have been self-inflicted as well.

tehwebguy 6y ago

Possibly not as sadistic as the judge handling the will: > But some mothers who had more than nine kids still weren’t allowed a shot at the prize. Pauline Clarke was one of them; she had 10 children within the timeline — the first five with her former husband and the second five with a different man, one she lived with after her separation from her husband. Middleton was not impressed. “‘Children,’ when used in any testamentary document, always means legitimate children,” he wrote in his judgment. Instead of $9 million, Clarke was eventually given a settlement of just over $200,000, and that came only after a lengthy lawsuit.

fred_is_fred 6y ago
This was 100 years ago and that was not an outside the norm view back then.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  OK, procreation based multi-million dollar contest wills were extremely outside the norm ??
  - fred_is_fred 6y ago
    The reply was about legitimate vs illegitimate children - not the contest.
    - tehwebguy 6y ago
      Yes, in the sense of whether someone is a “legitimate child” of the deceased in a normal will (still absolutely repugnant that “illegitimate children” could be excluded by default, but not this judge’s fault). However, it seems clear the judge used that definition to change the rules of the contest, which makes no sense.
      - fred_is_fred 6y ago
        The point is that legally (in the eyes of the judge) these were not children of the parties - regardless of the biological situation. I assume that this was standard legal process then and was applied to inheritance and other legal matters. The judge was simply applying existing law and custom by interpreting the words of the contest. This is why you have lawyers write these, although based on what's else this guy did, causing some confusion was likely the point.