Sounds about right

A man who was given nearly £1.6m by his father after he won £101m in the Euromillions has had his claim for more cash thrown out by a judge.

Michael Dawes, 32, took his father, Dave, and stepmother Angie to court after they stopped giving him more money. He claimed the couple had promised to ensure he and his partner, James Beedle, 34, would never have to worry about money again.

£1.6 million is a lifetime’s worth of money, no? It’s median income for the likely 60 year lifespan of a 30 year old.

Another way to put it, that’s a house and a holiday home bought outright and the pension fully paid up. Yes, life gets pretty easy once those are all paid for:

Michael Dawes was given £1m by his father and stepmother soon after their win, but the judge said nearly all of it had been spent within a month.

About £550,000 was spent on a house in Portsmouth, where Michael lived, but he also gave nearly £250,000 to friends and his partner’s family, and quit a well-paid IT job.

Aha. Living well without having to work? That’s a very, very, much more expensive proposition, isn’t it?

At one point, the pair were spending up to £30,000 a month, including £1,000 a week on groceries.

Blimey. You’d need a capital sum of more like £10 million to buy that lifestyle. Perhaps more actually, 5% return (bit high but dividends from an index fund maybe?) then tax to leave £360,000 a year left over? More than £10 million maybe.

I therefore dismiss the claim.

About right.

49 comments on “Sounds about right

  1. Under UK (but not French) law you can leave your entire estate to a donkey sanctuary if you wish.
    So who was the greedy lawyer who thought this case had any chance of success?

  2. 1.6 M quid tax-free as a gift (luckily there’s no UK gift tax…) @ say 4% return (should be doable with a managed portfolio at that level) gives 64k income a year.

    Enough to be comfortable on without working.

  3. But really, this kind of thing is quite common with people who come into a windfall – they blow it and end up destitute at the end.

  4. Promise made and not kept? Verbal contract sorta thing? ‘Bout the only possible one I can see.

  5. “Aha. Living well without having to work? “

    With the subsequent publicity he’s now brought down on his head, who’ll ever employ him again?

  6. @BiND – Yes. Should the donor kick the bucket within 7 years of making the gift its value is rolled back into the Estate for IHT purposes. There is some measure of taper relief, but it’s not generous!

  7. “He claimed the couple had promised to ensure he and his partner, James Beedle, 34, would never have to worry about money again.”

    Tim: “Promise made and not kept? Verbal contract sorta thing? ‘Bout the only possible one I can see.”

    As far as I can see it, the promise was kept. With 1.6M there was no need to worry about money again. That the recipient blew it by being a tit is his own problem.

  8. “Michael Dawes has not spoken to his father and stepmother since a falling out at her birthday party when he demanded £5m more and verbally abused Angie Dawes. He has also accused them of being arrogant and ungenerous of spirit.”

    What a thoroughly unpleasant little man.

  9. “bloke in france

    Under UK (but not French) law you can leave your entire estate to a donkey sanctuary if you wish”

    Indeed you can. But The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides that adult children are entitled to apply for reasonable provision from the estate of a deceased parent.

    So such a will could be challenged.

    Google Ilott v Mitson for a recent example.

  10. “I therefore dismiss the claim. And you, sir, are an utter cunt”

    I bet the judge wished he could say the second bit.

  11. It’s disturbing that this ever got to court.

    Things like this are killing off generosity. The obvious moral to take from it is, if you ever come into money, don’t give any away, unless you want to find yourself in court.

  12. The Telegraph added:

    ————-
    After the ruling, Mr Beedle, who has now transferred to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary after leaving the Royal Navy, was philosophical.
    “There are no hard feelings,” he said. “We just thought we had a genuine claim.”
    ————-

    Mr Beedle is the son’s civil partner. Sounds like he was the ‘Lady’ Macbeth here.

  13. The only thing I can think of is that sonny boy argued that a constructive trust arose, on the basis that he’d relied on his father’s promise and, having blown the money, it would unconscionable for the father not to have bailed him out.

    If so, that notion ought to have been, and may even have been, met with what we euphemistically call ‘robust advice’.

    Anyway, the self-entitled twerp deserved what he got by the sound of it.

    English justice rocks. Yay.

  14. “this kind of thing is quite common with people who come into a windfall – they blow it and end up destitute at the end.”

    I don’t think thats right, I’m sure I’ve read National Lottery research that shows the vast majority of lottery winners invest their winnings wisely, many continue to work (maybe not in the same manner as previously) and generally the experience is entirely positive for their lives. We hear about the people who blow the lot because they are great news stories, but I think they are a tiny minority of the overall lottery winner population.

  15. “There are no hard feelings”

    Yeah, you just took them to court. He wasn’t even your fucking father.

    Christ, some people are massive cunts, aren’t they?

  16. “Under UK (but not French) law …”: as usual a statement about UK law is bollocks because with few exceptions there is no such thing as UK law.

  17. £1000 a week in groceriesmust have meant oysters caviar and champagne all day every day. Mind blowing stupidity from the two self entitled claimants. But that’s still only £50k a year. It was the other spending that must have done them in.

    Morons.

  18. Jim, I think that Camelot took the view that headlines like “I won the pools and it ruined my life” would be bad for business, and decided to offer the necessary advice (or access to advisors, at least) to avoid them. So their research is intended to show how effective they’ve been, not that people generally know what they doing.

  19. Maybe O/T but the French lottery maintains a huge chateau on the Cote d’Azur for teaching lottery winners about how to spend / give away their winnings. Mostly unused, except by the guys that run the lotto of course.

    National lottery payout in UK, about 70% (i.e. a tax rate of 30% overall for “good causes”)

    Payout from the Lotto below 60%.

    Could this mean the frogs are happier to pay higher taxes than the Brits?

    A Legion d’Honneur for Spud if he promises never to set foot in the cuntry.

  20. dearime

    May 19, 2017 at 10:39 am

    Usually a posho will come along to tell you that “the hoi polloi” is bad grammar. Until he does you’ll have to make do with me. I do it only to point out that it may be bad Greek grammar but I don’t see why that necessarily makes it bad English grammar.

    and

    dearieme
    May 19, 2017 at 11:21 am

    “Under UK (but not French) law …”: as usual a statement about UK law is bollocks because with few exceptions there is no such thing as UK law.

    Are you auditioning for Rocco?

  21. I have no sympathy for the claimant here, but there must be some kind of story in the apparent extreme stinginess of the parents. They won a hundred million quid, and gave their son an amount they wouldn’t even notice out of one year’s income, let alone their capital?

    If he hadn’t already done stuff to piss them off – and judging by the court case, that seems unlikely – then that would appear to be pretty fucking harsh. £1.6m doesn’t go too far in the UK these days – that’ll produce a decent income, but not after you buy even a very ordinary house out of it.

  22. but there must be some kind of story in the apparent extreme stinginess of the parents.

    Not sure. If the son is the kind of twat that thought bringing a court case against his own father was the answer, then there’s probably more to this than meets the eye.

  23. Dave –

    Perhaps the claimant’s parents had real doubts about the claimant’s ability to manage such monies, and they gave him that pittance to see if he could manage it correctly.

    Having a sneaking suspicion that your kid is a fucking moron is not the same thing as being stingy.

  24. As the old saying nearly goes – they spent it on wine, men and son, the rest they squandered aimlessly.

  25. Manage a million and maybe get more later. Blow a million and father will know that can blow much bigger sums too.
    6 months after the million was asking for more. Who among us would happily give offspring more like that?

  26. The son was asking for 5 mill more, not long after he was given 1.6mill. Those are not amounts you wouldn’t notice. The way he was spending before too long he’d have plowed through a significant amount of the winnings. Which weren’t his to start with.

  27. I wish someone would treat me with “extreme stinginess” and give me £1.6m. I’d struggle through.

  28. Once again Dave proves himself to be a moron who either a) can’t read or b) has a brain which filters out inconvenient facts:

    ‘…but there must be some kind of story in the apparent extreme stinginess of the parents.’

    From the link: “The couple’s QC, Richard Wilson, said they had shared their good fortune with their family, giving away some £30m to relatives and close friends, as well as setting up a charity.”

  29. The good thing to come out of this is that when this man crawls back to work, as he has too, everyone he works with will realise what a massive cunt he is, and every time he’s bored or stressed at work he’ll remember he blew a shit load of money.

  30. I think they had a great case!

    ‘Michael Dawes . . . his partner, James Beedle’

    The damn judge ruled against LGBTs !!! I can’t believe he did it! The homos can’t either.

  31. Your honour, I refer to the comments of m’learned friend Mr Lud, to the effect that ‘that notion ought to have been, and may even have been, met with what we euphemistically call ‘robust advice’.’ I respectfully submit that such advice might indeed have been given, but not by counsel, or at least not until they had banked the brief fee and refreshers.

  32. Interested, for sure, the navy’s never been known for chutney ferreting. But seriously. Don’t you have a sister who’s counsel? Maybe I’m thinking of someone else. Anyway. Were it me, I’d get in a conference, find out what he was going on about. Recommend an Advice, having thought about it. Then get the sack for telling him what he didn’t want to hear.

    Daily refresher for appearances wouldn’t come into it, unless I was instructed at the last minute, and to hold the bag. By which time my views would be irrelevant and I’m being paid to take ak-ak.

    In my experience, there are rare parties to a case more granite-like in their sanctimonious determination than family members who perceive they’ve been diddled.

  33. Perhaps the father could show this twit the wonderful scene from an otherwise mediocre movie, The Gambler. This short scene is a required viewing for anyone who comes into so money. The fact it’s said by a ruthless gambler to a gambling addict doesn’t mean it’s not a good advice.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

  34. There’s a story in the bible about the prodigal son.
    This is not him. He acted that way but the father luckily did not.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.