Latest news with #brotherInLaw
Telegraph
28-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
‘My neighbour's dog savaged my cat, now he won't pay the £3,000 vet bill'
Do you have a legal question to put to Gary? Email askalawyer@ or use the form at the bottom of the page. Hello Gary, I'm asking this question on behalf of my sister. My sister and family live on a pleasant, quiet estate. A few weeks ago, one of her cats was sleeping peacefully in the front garden, when a man who lives elsewhere on the estate walked by with his Rhodesian Ridgeback dog on a lead. The dog saw the cat, broke free from the man and attacked the cat. This was caught on my sister's front door cam. The man managed to get his dog off the cat and rang the bell to apologise. He then walked off. Long and short, the cat suffered life-threatening injuries. It is now on the mend but will have a lifelong injury to one leg. The overall vet bill is about £3,000 and while my sister has the cat insured, it will not cover this amount. The thing that has angered my sister, and indeed other neighbours who know the man, is that he's offered no financial support. My brother-in-law has twice been round to his house to discuss the issue, but the man is not interested. He simply told my brother-in-law that his dog insurance does not cover injury caused to cats. He's clearly not going to do the right thing. Does my sister have any legal recourse to force the man to contribute towards the vet fees? These are fees that were incurred by his dog being out of control and causing great harm to a much-loved family member. All the best, John by email Dear John, I am very sorry about this terrible incident. As you say great harm has been done in what must be distressing circumstances for your sister and her family. My view as a lawyer is that the owner of the dog has legal responsibility for what has happened and arising from that responsibility can be forced to account for his actions. In legal terms pets, including dogs, are chattels, which means they are an item of property like a car or a piece of furniture capable of being owned by an individual. Hence, ownership of a dog is sometimes in dispute in situations like a divorce. In this case, while it is the action of the dog which caused the injury, the responsibility is with the dog owner. It is the Animals Act 1971 which addresses liability for animal-related incidents and makes clear a 'keeper' of an animal, by definition a dog owner, is liable for the actions of a dog. So, as a matter of preliminary evidence you should first establish the owner in this case is the owner of the miscreant dog. I would say the fact he has pet insurance for his dog pins him down on ownership. Under the Animals Act, keepers of animals can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog in certain circumstances. Even if the dog has not shown previous aggression or the owner did not intend harm. In this case the relevant facts and basis of the claim are: The dog caused injury to your sister's cat The dog was not under control, as it broke free from the lead and – The attack was reasonably foreseeable given the involvement of larger, powerful breeds like Rhodesian Ridgebacks, which are known for sometimes aggressive behaviour to smaller animals. I emphasise here that dogs behave instinctively, and it is the owners who should know that and manage their behaviour. In this case, the fact this occurred in a front garden where the cat had a right to be, and the dog was out of control strengthens your sister's potential claim. As well as liability under statute as per the Animals Act, your sister could bring a claim for negligence on the basis the dog owner failed to maintain control of the dog and/or damage to property as her cat is also her chattel so the dog has caused damage to her personal property. All of which means there is a legal basis for a monetary claim against the dog owner. The next issue is to value the claim. This will mean calculating all of the financial loss which has occurred, which in the main will be the vet's bill of £3,000. These losses should be set out with supporting evidence. An initial 'letter of claim' setting out the legal basis of the dog owner's liability (as above) and the financial losses claimed should be sent to the dog owner and he should be given a deadline to reply and pay up. Tell him if he does not pay by the deadline you will issue a claim under the 'small claims track' which can be done online in England and Wales for all monetary claims of a value up to £10,000. Here's the link. If your sister recovers her losses from the dog owner, she will of course have to repay any relevant part of her own insurance claim.
Washington Post
25-05-2025
- General
- Washington Post
Asking Eric: Casket photo creates rift in family
Dear Eric: Several years ago, my mother-in-law died due to dementia. During the time of her illness, my husband and I took care of everything, including selling her house, auctioning off her estate, dealing with her boyfriend who could never admit she had dementia, and dealing with the covid restrictions for visiting her. Of note, my brother-in-law lives in the Upper Midwest; we, and his mother, live in Florida. The burden was put on us, not him. On the day of her viewing, it was only my husband and me. I took pictures of her lying peacefully in her casket and forwarded them on to my brother-in-law. I got a scathing email from my brother-in-law saying that he had specifically asked not to send pictures of her dead. He only wanted to remember her healthy (how convenient). To be honest with you, I didn't remember that conversation as I was too stressed out from the whole ordeal. I feel guilty for sending the pictures but not really sorry for doing it because they finally had to deal with her passing firsthand. They did not have to live the ordeal like we did. I felt like the pictures were something I needed to share. Should I feel guilty for sending them, because I still do? — Photo Regret Photo: Guilt is not a very useful emotion. It's good information, sometimes, but what matters is what we do about the guilt, internally and externally. I know that the complicated process of settling your mother-in-law's affairs, particularly during covid lockdown, was hard for you. But you've got to acknowledge that what your brother-in-law is dealing with, including his own denial about his mother's illness, is hard, too. There's no hierarchy of suffering. You can start to alleviate some of that suffering — yours and theirs — by reaching out, apologizing and trying to make amends. In the grand scheme, you owe each other apologies. They didn't show up for your mother-in-law in the ways that would have been helpful, and that's not fair. But you don't get to dictate how your brother-in-law remembers his mother or how he processes his grief. Your actions, as you've described them, weren't malicious, but it's important to acknowledge their impact. Dear Eric: I'm friends with a pair of sisters, but closer with one than the other. Recently I invited them to a weekend getaway, where we were to be treated to a private chef's dinner. Less Close Sister immediately announced that she's 'avoiding gluten,' which obviously complicated our menu. On the drive up, she recounted her 'cheat night' with plenty of gluten the evening before, and happily consumed a (gluten-containing) lunch. I know there's no right way to say, 'your dietary needs seem to only pop up when you can be an inconvenience/pain in the butt,' but I'm really soured on traveling with her again, although I like her. Suggestions? — Gluten-tolerant Gluten-tolerant: The easiest solution is just not to have a private chef's dinner, or, to let the chef figure out what to cook to meet everyone's dietary needs. Isn't that the chef's job anyway? It's quite a leap to go from putting together a private dinner to swearing off traveling with this person again. Sometimes, when our opinions about people change, any little thing they do can become a point of annoyance. I wonder if that might be happening here. Something to consider. Dear Eric: 'Carpooling' wants to be reimbursed for gas for a 30-mile round-trip journey to pick up a friend's disabled son from the bus stop. The request from the 'dear friend' doesn't happen very often. My two cents are this: Losing or even offending a 'dear friend' isn't worth any price, let alone the price of a few gallons of gas ($10 or less). True friends grant favor requests, when possible, and usually without expecting anything in return. If it becomes a regular request, then definitely broach the subject, but a rare request is truly a 'favor,' and granting favors has a way of coming back to you. Instead, 'Carpooling' could think of this favor as a meal she might take to her friend if she were sick (and would likely spend more than $10 in that case). — Dear Friends are Priceless Priceless: Ten dollars is not the same everywhere nor is it the same to every budget. The letter writer isn't just complaining; the letter states that the frequency of the requests, combined with the amount, created a financial hardship. It's important to remember that everyone's finances are different and one person's easy favor is another person's stretch. The pricelessness of dear friends goes both ways; if I had a dear friend whose load I could lighten by covering the price of gas, I'd leap at the opportunity to do so. (Send questions to R. Eric Thomas at eric@ or P.O. Box 22474, Philadelphia, PA 19110. Follow him on Instagram and sign up for his weekly newsletter at 2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Telegraph
14-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
‘My brother is abusing his power of attorney to steal our mum's money'
Do you have a legal question to put to Gary? Email askalawyer@ or use the form at the bottom of the page. Dear Gary, In 2010 my mother-in-law transferred her house into the joint names of her two sons, my husband and his brother. No rent was ever charged, and she lived there until last year when, having been diagnosed with dementia in 2018 and now aged 92, she went into permanent residential care. The local authority has assessed her and agreed to pay the full cost of her care, with her state pension being used to part-fund it. My husband and his brother have a Lasting Power of Attorney for their mother. However, the relationship between the two of them has completely broken down and they are unable to agree on any decisions. Regarding the house, my husband wants to sell it and to split the money between him and his brother, but his brother wants him and his wife to move in. The problem with that is, he doesn't have the money to buy out my husband, and is very unlikely to get it. Added to this, while their mother was being assessed for her care, my brother-in-law spent £5,000 of her money on the house, getting new windows, repairing a garden fence and carpeting the hallway and kitchen. Also, over the years and as recently as Christmas, he has taken cash from the account – cash payments of £250 – every now again. My husband has never used his mother's money for anything of benefit to him. We know my brother-in-law uses the third bedroom at the house as his 'office', and is regularly at the house throughout the day. The utility bills and broadband are still being paid from his mother's account, totalling £240 per month. He and his wife do their washing there too, making use of the washing machine and electricity. Although my husband works full-time, we cannot possibly afford to take this to court. Every spare penny we have goes to help support our young adult children. Hannah Dear Hannah, Your brother-in-law is acting unlawfully and must be stopped in his tracks. He should not be using your mother-in-law's house as his own in circumstances where he is not the sole owner. And he should not be using your mother-in-law's own fund to subsidise his lifestyle. As joint owner of the house, your husband is entitled to apply to the court for an order for sale under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (often called 'Tolata' for short). I understand your concern about incurring legal fees. However, first writing to your brother-in-law to tell him you intend to ask the court for an order for sale – saying that if he refuses to back down and thereby forces you to go to court, you will seek your costs against him – will afford you some costs protection. The logic here is if you can show that you had no option but to go to court because the other owner was not willing to settle outside court, you are highly likely to have your reasonable legal costs awarded against the uncompromising party. The other aspect of this unfortunate situation is your husband and his brother being appointed as attorneys for their mother. The conduct of your brother-in-law in that role may offer a more cost-effective route to give him the comeuppance he deserves. It is a fundamental role of an attorney to act on the best interests of the donor of the power of attorney, who in this case is your mother-in-law. Your husband has adhered to this rule but, from what you say, his brother has not, in that he has used his mother's savings to pay for improvements to a house she no longer has any legal interest in and is no longer occupying, and which he now wants to acquire for himself. Also, he is using her funds to pay the outgoings on the house, again, when she no longer has any connection to the house. Your husband should write to his brother and insist the £5,000 is recorded as a loan to be repaid to your mother-in-law when the house is sold before the balance is divided between them. And he should add that while your brother-in-law and his wife are using the house as an office and to do their washing etc, they should have the utility accounts put into their name. It is important to do this because it is correct in law. But also, it is important to have a record of your husband calling out the unlawful behaviour of his brother and not appeasing it. From what you say, your brother-in-law may not respond. But don't let him get away with that. Give him seven days to respond, and say if he does not, your 'nuclear option' is to inform the local authority of what is happening and to ask them to class the house as a second home for your brother-in-law and his wife. That will make him stop and think, never mind put financial pressure on him to sell the house. If your brother-in-law does not agree to act lawfully, if he is acting as an attorney under a registered Lasting Power of Attorney, you can make a safe-guarding referral to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). You can do this either using the OPG130 form, or by emailing the Safeguarding Unit or calling their helpline. The OPG must be satisfied it can investigate, which in this case should be certain because your mother-in-law is vulnerable, and the alleged financial abuse is under the auspices of a Lasting Power of Attorney. Once the OPG launches an inquiry into your brother-in-law's conduct, it will do the running for you. It may take some time to play out, but per your concern about not racking up legal fees, there will be no cost to you for the OPG investigation. It is time for your husband to be decisive, but he must take steps to protect his mother from what is happening at the hands of her errant son.
CNN
14-05-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Divided by a border, united by fear: Kashmiris pick up the pieces after India-Pakistan step back from the brink
Mohammad Iqbal was working the nightshift at a power plant when he got a frantic call from his family saying artillery shells were exploding around their home. 'I told them all to hunker down in one room together on the ground floor and hopefully things would become okay by morning,' he told CNN. But dawn brought no relief from the shelling that would continue for four days as India and Pakistan fought their most intense conflict in decades, raising fears of an all-out war. Iqbal, 47, lives near the town Poonch in India-administered Kashmir, a stone's throw from the de-facto border with Pakistan, an area of pine-clad foothills and flowery meadows, backdropped by towering, icy peaks. But the idyll is illusory – Kashmir is one of the world's most militarized regions and the trigger for multiple wars between India and Pakistan, who both claim the territory in full but control only in part. Last week the nuclear-armed neighbors traded missiles, drones, and artillery shelling for four days following a massacre of tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir last month that New Delhi blamed on its neighbor, which Pakistan denies. Two hours after the firing started last Wednesday, Iqbal got news his brother-in-law's home had been hit. The shell had exploded at a nearby water tank, obliterating windows and sending shards of glass flying, hitting his brother-in-law and niece. What followed was a frantic scramble to get the wounded to the nearest hospital. 'As people started evacuating there were a few people in the village with cars so people just poured into whatever vehicle they could find,' Iqbal said. 'For a few hours it was difficult to locate everyone. People got split up. But finally at the hospital my family came together.' There, he found his brother-in-law, who works as a policeman, critically wounded and medical staff struggling to treat the influx of casualties. Iqbal's brother-in-law survived. But two of his neighbors did not. Pakistan said on Tuesday that 40 civilians had been killed and 121 wounded in Indian firing, and that 11 members of its armed forces had been killed. India has previously said 15 civilians were killed and 59 wounded and that it had lost five soldiers. For the roughly 15 million people living in the contested region, the latest bout of hostilities has appeared to push a political solution for their home further away than ever. But the immediate concern in both sides of Kashmir is how long the skies will stay quiet. 'There is an uneasy calm here,' Amir Choudhary, 25, from the town of Akhnoor in India-administered Kashmir told CNN on Sunday, hours after the ceasefire came into effect. 'Markets are open again and some people who had left have slowly started coming back,' he said. 'There still is that anxiety about what might happen when night comes,' he added. On the other side of the Line of Control, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Saima Ashraf shared those feelings. 'Uncertainty still prevails,' she said. 'Many believe it (the ceasefire) is not a permanent solution.' Others are unclear about when they can return to their homes and villages. 'Many of them are waiting to see how the situation develops before making a decision about returning,' Akhtar Ayoub, a local administration official in Pakistan's Neelum Valley, told Reuters. Raja Shoukat Iqbal, who lives near the de facto border, described the ceasefire as 'essential for the people of Kashmir' who he said were paying a high price on both sides of the divide. 'This peace was also necessary on the international level because both countries are nuclear powers, any mistakes or anger of any country could cause the deaths of two billion people,' he posited. Kashmir has been a flashpoint since 1947, when British India was hastily divided into two by its former colonial rulers. What followed was the birth of two nations: Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. Millions suddenly found themselves on the 'wrong' side of the new border, leading to a frantic and bloody mass migration that tore communities asunder. Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state led by a Hindu monarch, was in a unique position. Pakistan laid claim to the territory, while the prince chose India. Both Pakistan and India, two nations gripped by fervent nationalism, believe that Muslim-majority Kashmir is an integral part of their countries. For Pakistan – which was founded as a homeland for South Asia's Muslims – Kashmir's division is viewed as a grave historic injustice. The country's powerful military is run by the general Asim Munir, known for his hardline stance on India. Weeks before the latest conflict, he described Kashmir as Pakistan's 'jugular vein,' according to local media reports. India has long accused Pakistan of funding terror groups in Kashmir, an accusation denied by Islamabad. Pakistan, meanwhile, seeks to position the cause of violence in the region as a result of New Delhi's alleged 'oppression.' Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pushed a more uncompromising position on the contested land. In 2019, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government split the former state into two union territories, giving the government in New Delhi greater control over the Muslim-majority region. India and Pakistan have both claimed victory from their latest conflict. New Delhi says its strikes inside Pakistani territory – the deepest since one of their wars in 1971 – have eradicated terror camps used to plot attacks on India – including the massacre of tourists last month that sparked the conflict. Pakistan says its air force shot down five Indian warplanes, including advanced French-made Rafale fighter jets. On Monday, in his first remarks since the fighting started, Modi said India had 'only suspended our responsive attack on Pakistan's terror and military hubs.' 'In the coming days we will measure Pakistan's every step,' he said. Those on both sides of the border have long been living under the threat of shelling and strikes. A student from Uri, in India-administered Kashmir, described to CNN lying awake as the sound of shelling shook his home last week. 'We sat in silence, extremely petrified,' he said. 'Praying the next target would not be our family or our home.' The student, who CNN is not naming for security reasons, described the jubilant moment he heard the news announcing the ceasefire. 'Smiles plastered across our faces, and we hugged,' he said. 'We now want this ceasefire to stay. Both countries need to find long-term solutions.' Iqbal, the power plant worker, said he was trying to remain optimistic despite the damage done. 'We are lucky,' he said. 'We have only homes to re-build and our family is together. I hope things don't resume. But there's no guarantee.'
CNN
14-05-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Divided by a border, united by fear: Kashmiris pick up the pieces after India-Pakistan step back from the brink
Mohammad Iqbal was working the nightshift at a power plant when he got a frantic call from his family saying artillery shells were exploding around their home. 'I told them all to hunker down in one room together on the ground floor and hopefully things would become okay by morning,' he told CNN. But dawn brought no relief from the shelling that would continue for four days as India and Pakistan fought their most intense conflict in decades, raising fears of an all-out war. Iqbal, 47, lives near the town Poonch in India-administered Kashmir, a stone's throw from the de-facto border with Pakistan, an area of pine-clad foothills and flowery meadows, backdropped by towering, icy peaks. But the idyll is illusory – Kashmir is one of the world's most militarized regions and the trigger for multiple wars between India and Pakistan, who both claim the territory in full but control only in part. Last week the nuclear-armed neighbors traded missiles, drones, and artillery shelling for four days following a massacre of tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir last month that New Delhi blamed on its neighbor, which Pakistan denies. Two hours after the firing started last Wednesday, Iqbal got news his brother-in-law's home had been hit. The shell had exploded at a nearby water tank, obliterating windows and sending shards of glass flying, hitting his brother-in-law and niece. What followed was a frantic scramble to get the wounded to the nearest hospital. 'As people started evacuating there were a few people in the village with cars so people just poured into whatever vehicle they could find,' Iqbal said. 'For a few hours it was difficult to locate everyone. People got split up. But finally at the hospital my family came together.' There, he found his brother-in-law, who works as a policeman, critically wounded and medical staff struggling to treat the influx of casualties. Iqbal's brother-in-law survived. But two of his neighbors did not. Pakistan said on Tuesday that 40 civilians had been killed and 121 wounded in Indian firing, and that 11 members of its armed forces had been killed. India has previously said 15 civilians were killed and 59 wounded and that it had lost five soldiers. For the roughly 15 million people living in the contested region, the latest bout of hostilities has appeared to push a political solution for their home further away than ever. But the immediate concern in both sides of Kashmir is how long the skies will stay quiet. 'There is an uneasy calm here,' Amir Choudhary, 25, from the town of Akhnoor in India-administered Kashmir told CNN on Sunday, hours after the ceasefire came into effect. 'Markets are open again and some people who had left have slowly started coming back,' he said. 'There still is that anxiety about what might happen when night comes,' he added. On the other side of the Line of Control, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Saima Ashraf shared those feelings. 'Uncertainty still prevails,' she said. 'Many believe it (the ceasefire) is not a permanent solution.' Others are unclear about when they can return to their homes and villages. 'Many of them are waiting to see how the situation develops before making a decision about returning,' Akhtar Ayoub, a local administration official in Pakistan's Neelum Valley, told Reuters. Raja Shoukat Iqbal, who lives near the de facto border, described the ceasefire as 'essential for the people of Kashmir' who he said were paying a high price on both sides of the divide. 'This peace was also necessary on the international level because both countries are nuclear powers, any mistakes or anger of any country could cause the deaths of two billion people,' he posited. Kashmir has been a flashpoint since 1947, when British India was hastily divided into two by its former colonial rulers. What followed was the birth of two nations: Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. Millions suddenly found themselves on the 'wrong' side of the new border, leading to a frantic and bloody mass migration that tore communities asunder. Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state led by a Hindu monarch, was in a unique position. Pakistan laid claim to the territory, while the prince chose India. Both Pakistan and India, two nations gripped by fervent nationalism, believe that Muslim-majority Kashmir is an integral part of their countries. For Pakistan – which was founded as a homeland for South Asia's Muslims – Kashmir's division is viewed as a grave historic injustice. The country's powerful military is run by the general Asim Munir, known for his hardline stance on India. Weeks before the latest conflict, he described Kashmir as Pakistan's 'jugular vein,' according to local media reports. India has long accused Pakistan of funding terror groups in Kashmir, an accusation denied by Islamabad. Pakistan, meanwhile, seeks to position the cause of violence in the region as a result of New Delhi's alleged 'oppression.' Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pushed a more uncompromising position on the contested land. In 2019, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government split the former state into two union territories, giving the government in New Delhi greater control over the Muslim-majority region. India and Pakistan have both claimed victory from their latest conflict. New Delhi says its strikes inside Pakistani territory – the deepest since one of their wars in 1971 – have eradicated terror camps used to plot attacks on India – including the massacre of tourists last month that sparked the conflict. Pakistan says its air force shot down five Indian warplanes, including advanced French-made Rafale fighter jets. On Monday, in his first remarks since the fighting started, Modi said India had 'only suspended our responsive attack on Pakistan's terror and military hubs.' 'In the coming days we will measure Pakistan's every step,' he said. Those on both sides of the border have long been living under the threat of shelling and strikes. A student from Uri, in India-administered Kashmir, described to CNN lying awake as the sound of shelling shook his home last week. 'We sat in silence, extremely petrified,' he said. 'Praying the next target would not be our family or our home.' The student, who CNN is not naming for security reasons, described the jubilant moment he heard the news announcing the ceasefire. 'Smiles plastered across our faces, and we hugged,' he said. 'We now want this ceasefire to stay. Both countries need to find long-term solutions.' Iqbal, the power plant worker, said he was trying to remain optimistic despite the damage done. 'We are lucky,' he said. 'We have only homes to re-build and our family is together. I hope things don't resume. But there's no guarantee.'
