Rules for an Intestate before 1965

Deesse

Hi,
Hope I'm in the right place here:)

Just wondering if anyone knows what the laws were on division of an intestate's registered freehold property prior to the 1965 succession act?

Hypothetical situation is: Man dies intestate in the 1950's. He is survived by his wife and a number of children. The property was never administered - i.e. it's still registered in the man's name! His wife dies intestate in the 1980's, being survived by a number of children.

Any idea's what laws apply to the administration of the man's estate?

Jo King

The mans estate would have passed through the laws of primogeniture. Much depends on whether there was a son of the marriage or not as the eldest son would be heir at law. The likelihood is that there is some kind of adverse possession established on the property by now so the history of the occupancy needs to be examined.

johnnyskeleton

This is a complicated question, so don't expect a simple answer. If the husband and wife held the property as joint tenants it would have passed directly to the wife.

Other than that it would most likely be subject to an adverse possession claim from whoever lived in the house for the years after the death of the intestate.

Deesse

Thanks Jo and Johnny. I was guessing feudal primogeniture would be a factor. Is that printed in law anywhere - i can't seem to find any exact references?

Also, lets make the situation interesting, and say there was no joint tenancy and that there was issue: a son "A" (1st heir at law?) with no issue, daughters B and C then Son D(2nd heir at law, with male issue 3rd heir at law?) and Son E.

Now as I said, no administration of the estate ever occurred. Let's say Son A died after the man, son D died after the wife. Now to make it fun, son E has occupied the house his entire life. He dies without ever taking any action to register the property in his name.

In a situation such as this, should the son of son D be the heir to the estate, or could any action be taken on the adverse possession front to make son E - the one who lived there all his life - the rightful owner AFTER his death?

johnnyskeleton

Deesse wrote: »

I was guessing feudal primogeniture would be a factor. Is that printed in law anywhere - i can't seem to find any exact references?

The Inheritance Act, 1833? Or, more realistically, in an old copy of Wylie.

Deesse wrote:

Also, lets make the situation interesting,

No, let's not. It's interesting enough as it is. I also think there is some crazy rule about how a person's real estate can pass as personalty in certain intestacies (but I don't know which).

Deesse wrote:

Now as I said, no administration of the estate ever occurred. Let's say Son A died after the man, son D died after the wife. Now to make it fun, son E has occupied the house his entire life. He dies without ever taking any action to register the property in his name.

In a situation such as this, should the son of son D be the heir to the estate, or could any action be taken on the adverse possession front to make son E - the one who lived there all his life - the rightful owner AFTER his death?

A person's right to recover property, generally extinguishes after 12 years of knowing that they are entitled to the property but not doing anything to get it.

After 20 years, a person in adverse possession may get good marketable title to the land.

However, adverse possession must be continuous and it is not absolute. It's not a question of who is the rightful owner, it's about who has the better of two (or several competing claims).

Sorry about that - I seem to have been possessed by a conveyancer for a few moments.