Intestacy Question

kronsington

Hi,

Im hoping someone with a better grasp on probate can give me a hand with this problem. right, here are the facts.

we're advising the widow on her inheritence rights

husband SNIP and one son (SNIP) died in the same car accident. husband never made will, always said wife would get everything. The widower and her husband have 3 children chris, stephen and SNIP (2 now excluding the one who died in the accident, SNIP). the spouse stephen is giving out bout her share of the estate (if any). they have one child and she is expecting another. chris is claiming he is entitled to SNIP farm and all related property since he worked on the farm since he was 15. the widower is worried what she will do if the children take everything- she has never worked outside the home and is partially sighted after an accident.

i know under the rules of intestacy she will get 2/3 of the estate- what happens the rest? will one third be split between SNIP SNIP and the daughter in law/ stephens kid and soon to be born kid? whats the daughter in laws story? what about the farm? is the fact the widower partially sighted relevant to anything?

any thoughts on this would be helpful thanks

speedfight

Don't want to do your job for you but I'll set you in the general direction. There is no widower, it is the husband's widow that is having the worry.

The remaining 1/3 will go to the remaining children and the child of the deceased child in accordance with S67 and the per stirpes rule. The unborn child is not entitled to anything. so two children and the alive grandchild in equal shares.

As for the claim against the land due to estoppel by the brother, that is a whole other days work for you.

Jo King

The first question is who died first? Father or son? If the times of death are not known the presumption of simultaneous death will apply. If Stephen survived his father his 1/9 of the estate falls into his estate. If not, his 1/9 share goes to his living child. The partial sightedness of the widow is irrelevant. There can be no Section 117 challenge to an intestacy, so the son claiming an inheritance based on his working since 15 will not succeed in his claim and is only entitled to 1/9 of the estate.

dermot_sheehan

Jo King wrote: »

The first question is who died first? Father or son? If the times of death are not known the presumption of simultaneous death will apply. If Stephen survived his father his 1/9 of the estate falls into his estate. If not, his 1/9 share goes to his living child. The partial sightedness of the widow is irrelevant. There can be no Section 117 challenge to an intestacy, so the son claiming an inheritance based on his working since 15 will not succeed in his claim and is only entitled to 1/9 of the estate.

Unless of course that son can establish a proprietry estoppel claim.

Jo King

gabhain7 wrote: »

Unless of course that son can establish a proprietry estoppel claim.

On the facts given, he has not claimed there was any promise to give the land to him. The work alone would not create an automatic right. A court would be very slow to deprive a surviving widow of the assets of her late husband. Even if the son had worked the land for a low or no wage, the court would probably allow him a wage as a debt from the estate.

BMRising

I hope SNIP don't read boards.